HRT and UC - client not meeting the criteria to be automatically treated as a worker

I have an EEA client with pre-settled status who is being supported by the local council because she has 3 children (2 in education, the other aged 3). She has managed to secure some work but is not earning £720 per month. She earned £615 in June/July but said that for July/August she will be paid slightly less. She is contracted to work 10 hours per week in a cleaning job. I am looking for arguments to get her treated as a worker so she can claim UC successfully. Has anyone had any success with this before that could let me have any pointers? I want to put in an MR but need something good to hang it on. The council are making noises about stopping the Section 17 support for the family. Any help welcome,
thanks,
C
p.s my client has been refused UC multiple times previously as she was not working

The whole thresholds of earnings and duration of employment which EEA worker must achieve in order to satisfy HRT have no basis in legislation. It is an admin crutch for decision makers.
Talking about decision makers, ADM actually encourages DMs to look at the whole picture- with neither the amount of earnings or duration of employment being a deciding factor as to whether work is genuine and effective. Look into C1294 at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994854/admc1.pdf
Explore with client all the details that may persuade DM that this work is genuine and effective; is there a contract of employment, is she on the rota, has she been given uniform, keys, training, employee book etc.

As for the AN ref, look here: 9.9.0.2 Right to reside for benefits (EWS) § If you earn less than £184 a week
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/advisernet/benefits/benefits-for-eea-nationals/before-a-claim/right-to-reside-for-benefits/#h-if-you-earn-less-than-184-a-week

Just to reinforce what Jo has said, the “Minimum Earnings Threshold” only exists in DWP’s head and it is absolutely not helpful as a metric for determining whether or not your client is a “worker” within the meaning of EU law.

The only relevant test is whether the claimant is engaged in “genuine and effective” economic activity as opposed to activity which is so “marginal or ancillary” that it ought to be ignored. Activity which is poorly paid, or which is part time or which is only a time limited appointment can still be genuine and effective in the sense of being a meaningful engagement.

Assuming that we are talking about a typical 10 hour cleaning job through an agency or what have you, I would think your client has very good prospects at appeal. The point is that it is regular organised work, paid at the appropriate level and that the engagement has come about due to the economic need of whoever it having the cleaning done (and therefore if your client were not doing the cleaning they would be paying somebody else to do it). The hours worked are not great but are hardly “marginal” and the work is in no way “ancillary” to some other relationship.

The point in these cases is to be persistent as the front line decision makers are frequently totally off base in their decision making. Usually when it gets to MR or appeal you start to find that it gets dealt with by people who a better understanding of the law in this area.